Midland veterans fear their war pensions could be swallowed up by care costs because they are “unfairly” singled out.

The “disgraceful” treatment could leave badly wounded heroes impoverished, according to the Royal British Legion (RBL), because many injured veterans are forced to use military compensation to cover social care costs.

But this only applies to servicemen and women injured before 2005 – meaning more recent veterans with serious injuries are exempt from having to dip into their payouts to fund social care.

The RBL has now launched a campaign urging the Government to stop forcing injured veterans to use their military compensation to pay for social care.

Andy Gollop, 49, of Stirchley, Solihull, receives a war pension of £137 a month after developing post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following action in Croatia during a 14-year Army career.

But, because he received his pension before 2005, he also stands liable for any social care costs.

He said: “I currently don’t receive any social care but it worries me that the council will take my war pension if I ever need support in the future.

“I think the system is totally unfair. If it doesn’t change then I will need to think ahead and organise my money. I simply can’t afford to lose that extra money every month. I hope the insult to injury campaign is successful – being injured in service is bad enough to deal with.”

Sapper Clive Smith with girlfriend Sarah Bowker

Sapper Clive Smith, 29, from Cannock, receives money under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme after he lost his legs to an explosive device in Afghanistan in 2010.

He said: “I think it’s disgraceful that veterans injured before April 2005 should lose part of their war pension to pay for social care needs.

“Thankfully, I have peace of mind that my compensation won’t be taken into account if I ever need support in the future.

“No-one who served their country should ever be penalised in this way. I fully support ‘Insult to Injury’ to get equality for all veterans like me.”

The RBL claims the war pensioners would be, on average, £74 per week better off and there are more than 100,000 people who stand to benefit from the campaign.

Injured veterans on the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, introduced for those injured on or after April 6, 2005, do not pay towards their social care.

Chris Simpkins, director general of the RBL, said: “Not only is it unfair that war pensioners are treated less favourably than a veteran injured at a later date, but it’s also unfair that war pensioners’ compensation is seen as normal income in means tests for social care.

“In contrast, civilian compensation is not treated in this way. This goes against the Armed Forces Covenant which states that there should be ‘no disadvantage by comparison with civilians due to service’.

“The fact that over 99 per cent of councils in England disregard War Pensions for council tax support, compared to the 12 per cent that do so in social care means tests, shows that politicians recognise that military compensation should not be viewed as income.

“The legion is campaigning to put this right so that all injured veterans retain the compensation that is rightfully theirs.”

The legion is calling for the UK, Welsh and Scottish Governments to set aside a ring-fenced fund within their respective health budgets and announce this in the 2015 Budget statement in mid-March.

But the Department of Health said it is not appropriate to compare the two schemes.

A spokeswoman said: “As part of the Armed Forces Covenant, this Government has committed to making sure veterans get special treatment, when appropriate, and are not disadvantaged by their service.

“We have been working with the Royal British Legion on this to see how we can support all veterans as part of our wider transformation of the way we pay for care in this country.”